[jdonn]

Cascade, you seem to imply several times in your post that you have already been punished for forgetting what your bid means and that is punishment enough. But forgetting your methods has done two things. You get a bad bridge score because forgetting your method is an ineffective strategy (punished by the scoring table, as you put it). And (in the proposed scenario) you get penalized because you have put your opponents in an unfair position. One has nothing to do with the other, and the second has nothing to do with the score you achieved on the board. It's a tax on undesirable behavior, even if it's not on purpose.

Almost everything else you said in your post has already been argued with or discussed so I won't repeat, except to say it's the very end where you really go wrong. No one is advocating (I think) that an artificial score is awarded to both side simply because one explained a bid wrong. It's merely a penalty for the side at fault that is being suggested. So you certainly can disagree if you want, but are wrong to accuse Fred of trying to 'have his cake and eat it too' as he isn't trying to gain anything for his side in any of this.

[Trinidad]

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

I really would not have thought it necessary to explain this, but here is the difference between a card play error or a poor bid (ie a mistake) and a system-forget:

When the opponents make a mistake it is just a mistake. The mistake plays itself out and, whatever happens, happens.

When the opponents forget their system, however, they are saying that they have an agreement and they are providing you with information. Based on that information you might:

[]

This is all because the opponents have given you information that allegedly they had agreed upon, which turned out to be wrong.

In the case of a pure mistake, one could argue that the opponents have not given you any information at all. But even if you don't buy that, the information they did give you ("I bid 3NT" or "I play the 3 of spades") is part of the normal mechanisms of bridge - it has nothing to do with an alleged partnership agreement.

I have to say that I am disappointed that those who traditionally argue for "liberal system regulations" (or no systems regulations at all) on these Forums all seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred,

Just for clarification:

Are you talking about misinformation (which is what your last post seems to be about) or about opponents who have a misunderstanding about their agreements (which invariably will lead to misinformation when screens are in use).

For a TD these are two entirely different things:
- Misinformation is an infraction covered by the Laws
- A misunderstanding about agreements is not an infraction (in itself)

And, I must add, usually for scientists the difference between the two is entirely clear while for artists the difference is often fuzzy.

As to your last comment:

Quote

It would be nice if just one of them would step up to the plate and say "if we are going to be allowed to play our desired methods, despite the fact that many players do not want this, the least we can do is make sure that we know what we are doing".

Isn't this exactly the difference between the scientist and the artist? The scientist being the one who knows what he is doing (and easy to check by a TD, since it is documented in the 100+ page system book) and the artist who vaguely relies on partnership experience (which often deviates from standard) without any explanation or documentation other than "I felt like it" (knowing very well that he and his partner "felt" exactly the same the last time this situation occured).

If you say: "Let's go after the artists who claim they play "just natural" but whose bidding is consistently different from that of the field while they aren't able to explain simple bidding sequences and don't have any decent documentation." then I am 100% behind you.

If you say: "Let's go after the scientist who explains all his bids and has them documented, but who has a lapse in concentration and shows a 5143 with the ♠A, ♦KQ and ♣9, while he holds a 5134 with the ♠A, ♦KQ and ♣9 and is lucky enough to make 6♦ in the 4-3 fit." then I am not with you.

Rik

[655321]

As usual in this sort of thread there seem to be a lot of replies written by people who did not bother to read or understand the original post.

Examples of relevant auctions are the famous Ghestem: opponents alert a 3♣ overcall as showing a 2-suiter, of course it turns out overcaller had clubs all the time and misbid. Or, 1♥ - P - 1NT - X; 2♦ rebid with a singleton diamond - it turns out they play transfers here without the double, but play transfers off over the double - no redress because 2♦ was a misbid not a misexplanation.

I agree with Fred that it would be nice to do 'something' about pairs who frequently have this sort of forget in important events, but not sure what.

Anyway, while I am posting in this thread, I might as well go a bit off-topic and respond to this too:

NickRW, on Jul 20 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

There is already enough prejudice against bidders and bidding systems already - while those who strength is card play have utterly free reign to play pretty much how they like

If somebody plays their cards a lot better than I do, sorry, they are a much better bridge player than I am. For me to console myself by thinking, well, I don't play the cards so well, but I do play my home-grown strong club system with relays, and therefore we have different-but-equal strengths... well, it is beyond belief to me that some people think this way.

[quiddity]

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

I really would not have thought it necessary to explain this...

Perhaps I'm slow. In any case, if I understand correctly, you propose extra penalties for system forgets because:

- they randomize results and reduce your enjoyment of the game. imo, this is true of all mistakes.

- they are akin to psyching, reckless random swinging, showing up drunk. imo these are intentional acts, while system forgets are by definition unintentional mistakes. imo, the comparison is completely invalid.

- they can damage the opponents by causing them to draw incorrect inferences. imo, true of all mistakes.

- they result in director calls which can get the opps into time trouble.

Ok... However, if system forgets are treated as simple mistakes, the vast majority would not require director calls - agree? If the opponents have damaged themselves, have gotten to some ridiculous contract as with the majority of forgets, you just take the money and smile. If I understand correctly, director calls are reserved for the minority of cases where the opponents are damaged and/or suspect deliberate misinformation or some other infraction (perhaps I'm wrong about this?)

However, under your proposal (or awm's proposal), every system forget is penalizable. That means every forget requires a director call. And the previously mentioned minority of cases will STILL require special attention. I don't see how this improves anything.

[quiddity]

655321, on Jul 21 2009, 03:09 AM, said:

Examples of relevant auctions are...

I read and understood the OP (I think), but I don't understand why you and Fred think such mistakes require special treatment. In one case, a player makes a bad bid by preempting with Q87652; in another he makes a bad bid because he thought transfers were on after a double. In either case the opponents are misled (to different degrees of course) and there is the potential for damage. But so what?

It seems like the problem is an artifact of the screen system. If the BBO model were used, such that every player is responsible for alerting his own bids to both opponents, does the problem go away entirely?

[the hog]

655321, on Jul 21 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

As usual in this sort of thread there seem to be a lot of replies written by people who did not bother to read or understand the original post.

Examples of relevant auctions are the famous Ghestem: opponents alert a 3♣ overcall as showing a 2-suiter, of course it turns out overcaller had clubs all the time and misbid. Or, 1♥ - P - 1NT - X; 2♦ rebid with a singleton diamond - it turns out they play transfers here without the double, but play transfers off over the double - no redress because 2♦ was a misbid not a misexplanation.

I agree with Fred that it would be nice to do 'something' about pairs who frequently have this sort of forget in important events, but not sure what.

Anyway, while I am posting in this thread, I might as well go a bit off-topic and respond to this too:

NickRW, on Jul 20 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

There is already enough prejudice against bidders and bidding systems already - while those who strength is card play have utterly free reign to play pretty much how they like

If somebody plays their cards a lot better than I do, sorry, they are a much better bridge player than I am. For me to console myself by thinking, well, I don't play the cards so well, but I do play my home-grown strong club system with relays, and therefore we have different-but-equal strengths... well, it is beyond belief to me that some people think this way.

So you don't think skill at bidding is as important as skill at card play? I do as do many.

[655321]

The_Hog, on Jul 21 2009, 04:53 AM, said:

655321, on Jul 21 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 20 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

There is already enough prejudice against bidders and bidding systems already - while those who strength is card play have utterly free reign to play pretty much how they like

If somebody plays their cards a lot better than I do, sorry, they are a much better bridge player than I am. For me to console myself by thinking, well, I don't play the cards so well, but I do play my home-grown strong club system with relays, and therefore we have different-but-equal strengths... well, it is beyond belief to me that some people think this way.

So you don't think skill at bidding is as important as skill at card play? I do as do many.

Well (to continue my off-topic rant) yes, I think bidding is important.

But what often seems to happen is that bad players recognise that they play the cards badly, but for whatever reason convince themselves that they make up for this by excellent bidding. Often (usually?) in these cases, these players' bidding is at the same standard as their cardplay. Playing an elaborate system, using unusual evaluation methods (Zar points, etc) is not the same thing as bidding well.

Anyway, just my opinion, in reaction to another of these 'for those whose strength is their cardplay' posts.

[helene_t]

fred, on Jul 21 2009, 03:14 AM, said:

It would be nice if just one of them would step up to the plate and say "if we are going to be allowed to play our desired methods, despite the fact that many players do not want this, the least we can do is make sure that we know what we are doing".

Whenever Shogi and I screw up our system, I very much prefer the TD to adjust the board to the best possible result for opps, even if opps were strictly not entitled to that under current laws. For example, once (during a quarter finale of Dutch pairs champships) Shogi claimed I had shown a singleton spade. After I had followed to spades twice and it was evident that if the explanation was correct there could be no more that 10 spades in the pack, declarer still played me for a singleton spades, claiming that he hadn't noticed that I followed twice, and went down. The TD adjusted to what he would have made if he had played perfectly*. I am comfortable with that sort rulings because the nuisance that we cause to opps might cool a little when at least they are assured a good result.

Of course it would be better for the field if we hadn't forgotten the system in the first place, but it is not like we need an insensitive to try to avoid it. We do our best to avoid it already. If anything, harder penalties for system forgets would make us (at least me) less motivated to avoid them because as I described above, it is very embarrassing when it happens and being severely punished is a relief.

That is not my point, though. The reason why I find the idea of making a system forget an infraction to be a terrible idea (I could use a much stronger word) are different, as I have stated several times.

*We could probably have had table result restored if we had appealed, because declarer didn't do much to protect himself. But I have sympathy for the ruling, because lesser players may loose general concentration when exposed to an irregularity, and I think it would be prudent to take that into account even if the damage was technically not a consequence of the irregularity. Of course it opens a can of worm if the TD need to make a psychological assessment of the non-offender so it may be an unsound principle, I am just saying that I "feel" sympathy for it, at least when I or my p is the offender.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 07:06 PM, said:

Cascade, you seem to imply several times in your post that you have already been punished for forgetting what your bid means and that is punishment enough. But forgetting your methods has done two things. You get a bad bridge score because forgetting your method is an ineffective strategy (punished by the scoring table, as you put it). And (in the proposed scenario) you get penalized because you have put your opponents in an unfair position. One has nothing to do with the other, and the second has nothing to do with the score you achieved on the board. It's a tax on undesirable behavior, even if it's not on purpose.

Almost everything else you said in your post has already been argued with or discussed so I won't repeat, except to say it's the very end where you really go wrong. No one is advocating (I think) that an artificial score is awarded to both side simply because one explained a bid wrong. It's merely a penalty for the side at fault that is being suggested. So you certainly can disagree if you want, but are wrong to accuse Fred of trying to 'have his cake and eat it too' as he isn't trying to gain anything for his side in any of this.

You have some strange ideas when you think that your opponent making a mistake puts you in an unfair position.

By contrast I think it is unfair to pick on only certain sorts of mistakes as has be proposed here.

Your logic leaves a lot to be desired if you think penalizing a contestent does not gain something for the other contestents.

[kenrexford]

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

This is all because the opponents have given you information that allegedly they had agreed upon, which turned out to be wrong.

In the case of a pure mistake, one could argue that the opponents have not given you any information at all. But even if you don't buy that, the information they did give you ("I bid 3NT" or "I play the 3 of spades") is part of the normal mechanisms of bridge - it has nothing to do with an alleged partnership agreement.

I have to say that I am disappointed that those who traditionally argue for "liberal system regulations" (or no systems regulations at all) on these Forums all seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

It would be nice if just one of them would step up to the plate and say "if we are going to be allowed to play our desired methods, despite the fact that many players do not want this, the least we can do is make sure that we know what we are doing".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Choice of wording is important, IMO. You use the word "allegedly" twice here. Why? If the idea is one of MI, it seems that the lugging around of the 100+ page system notes solves that question, ideally. Notably, however, the artists do not seem to ever carry a 100+ page set of system notes to the tournament. Catch the contrast yet?

An obvious solution to that specific problem is to require deposit of a better set of system notes prior to major play. The ACBL convention card is hopeless. The WBF card is better. Maybe this needs to be expanded yet further?

I also have long thought that in the computer age, for really high-level competition, these systems notes could be computerized. Maybe volunteers data-entry hand-written notes to help some computer illiterates. This would have multiple benefits, including feeds to screeens in front of each player (closed circuit) with explanations of all opponent bidding, feeds to vugraph for explanations at the table, feeds to TD's for better rulings, etc. That type of solution seems to work better than the murky punishment concept and the undoubted disputes that will erupt (this was an allowed deviation! He's not explaining SAYC properly! Etc.)

I have no idea how the "punishment" is "cake and eat it too." I'm surprised that you don't realize the opposite. "If we are going to play CW methods, and demand minutae detail from those who use different gadgets, the least WE can do is to actually explain our simplified methods properly and to work on understanding our system as much as those who play complicated methods."

[the hog]

655321, on Jul 21 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 21 2009, 04:53 AM, said:

655321, on Jul 21 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 20 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

There is already enough prejudice against bidders and bidding systems already - while those who strength is card play have utterly free reign to play pretty much how they like

If somebody plays their cards a lot better than I do, sorry, they are a much better bridge player than I am. For me to console myself by thinking, well, I don't play the cards so well, but I do play my home-grown strong club system with relays, and therefore we have different-but-equal strengths... well, it is beyond belief to me that some people think this way.

So you don't think skill at bidding is as important as skill at card play? I do as do many.

Well (to continue my off-topic rant) yes, I think bidding is important.

But what often seems to happen is that bad players recognise that they play the cards badly, but for whatever reason convince themselves that they make up for this by excellent bidding. Often (usually?) in these cases, these players' bidding is at the same standard as their cardplay. Playing an elaborate system, using unusual evaluation methods (Zar points, etc) is not the same thing as bidding well.

Anyway, just my opinion, in reaction to another of these 'for those whose strength is their cardplay' posts.

Numerical one, do you really think that? I may be wrong and things may well be different in the States, however in my experience, the players who play elaborate or relay systems or whatever do know how to pull cards. Maybe they are not Rosenbergs, but they are not bad. I have yet to meet a card playing total patzer who plays a relay system.
Whoops, just remembered, thats not quite true. I did come across a pair who played a 10-20 NT in National competitions once, and they were total patzers. Funny though that they never got the range wrong - but that is another story for another time.

[hrothgar]

fred, on Jul 21 2009, 05:14 AM, said:

I have to say that I am disappointed that those who traditionally argue for "liberal system regulations" (or no systems regulations at all) on these Forums all seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

It would be nice if just one of them would step up to the plate and say "if we are going to be allowed to play our desired methods, despite the fact that many players do not want this, the least we can do is make sure that we know what we are doing".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I think that this is a case where our own particular lenses have a very big impact on the way we view this issue.

I'm sure that you feel your posts are quite reasonable and balanced; however, when I read them the consistant theme is:

"The regulatory structure should systematically discriminate against the bidding style that you use and systematically favor the bidding style that I (coincidentally)happen to use"

And somehow, you seem surprised that the more scientific bidders find this offensive...

From my own perspective, you aren't going to find common ground so long as you're arguing that different (legal) bidding styles should be treated differently under the laws.

I'm going to close with a quote from Howard Roark (not because I agree with the sentiment, but rather because I am so highly amused to see you advancing such a collectivist argument)

Quote

"My work done my way. A private, personal, selfish, egotistical motivation. That's the only way I function. That's all I am."

[Cascade]

655321, on Jul 21 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 20 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

There is already enough prejudice against bidders and bidding systems already - while those who strength is card play have utterly free reign to play pretty much how they like

If somebody plays their cards a lot better than I do, sorry, they are a much better bridge player than I am. For me to console myself by thinking, well, I don't play the cards so well, but I do play my home-grown strong club system with relays, and therefore we have different-but-equal strengths... well, it is beyond belief to me that some people think this way.

I disagree.

If someone plays the cards much better than me but they are frequently in the wrong contract then they are far from necessarily a better bridge player than me.

Bridge is a game with many facets and to be a good player you need to have skills in all areas.

The notion that bidding skills are somewhat less important that the play of the cards seems incredibly erroneous to me.

[kenrexford]

Cascade, on Jul 21 2009, 07:23 AM, said:

655321, on Jul 21 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 20 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

There is already enough prejudice against bidders and bidding systems already - while those who strength is card play have utterly free reign to play pretty much how they like

If somebody plays their cards a lot better than I do, sorry, they are a much better bridge player than I am. For me to console myself by thinking, well, I don't play the cards so well, but I do play my home-grown strong club system with relays, and therefore we have different-but-equal strengths... well, it is beyond belief to me that some people think this way.

I disagree.

If someone plays the cards much better than me but they are frequently in the wrong contract then they are far from necessarily a better bridge player than me.

Bridge is a game with many facets and to be a good player you need to have skills in all areas.

The notion that bidding skills are somewhat less important that the play of the cards seems incredibly erroneous to me.

They are, though, somewhat necessarily intertwined.

As a simple example, consider a bidding problem that came up last week. After I opened a minor and then rebid 1NT, my partner asked whether she should have bid 2NT invitational or just 3NT with her tweener hand. She was concerned that I open light a lot. My suggestion to her was to bid 3NT when in doubt if I am declaring because I declare way better than the field of overbidders declares and the field of blues defends.

The point of this is that effective bidding skills requires understanding of one's declaring ability. If you cannot find that obscure line, then bidding to the maximum level serves no purpose.

Similarly, really effective bidding requires actual declaring ability in the bidding process. If you can visualize partner's hand but have no idea what to do with those cards, you cannot find the right contract anyway. You might find the right contract for you, but not the field-ideal contract.

So off topic, though. sorry.

[655321]

Cascade, on Jul 21 2009, 07:23 AM, said:

655321, on Jul 21 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 20 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

There is already enough prejudice against bidders and bidding systems already - while those who strength is card play have utterly free reign to play pretty much how they like

If somebody plays their cards a lot better than I do, sorry, they are a much better bridge player than I am. For me to console myself by thinking, well, I don't play the cards so well, but I do play my home-grown strong club system with relays, and therefore we have different-but-equal strengths... well, it is beyond belief to me that some people think this way.

I disagree.

If someone plays the cards much better than me but they are frequently in the wrong contract then they are far from necessarily a better bridge player than me.

Bridge is a game with many facets and to be a good player you need to have skills in all areas.

The notion that bidding skills are somewhat less important that the play of the cards seems incredibly erroneous to me.

You have misunderstood the point I was trying to make.

If I compare myself as a bridge player to players whose cardplay is much better than mine, either:

1) I can admit that they are better bridge players than me, or
2) I really am so much better at bidding than they are, that I am overall on a similar level as a bridge player, or
3) I pretend to myself that I am a bidding specialist, and therefore I am on a similar level as a bridge player, when in fact my bidding is no better than my cardplay.

2) is extremely unlikely. I don't know any top cardplayers who are 'frequently in the wrong contract', so to me this is a purely theoretical example, which I carelessly did not mention, but well done for finding this possibility and going to the trouble of posting to point it out.
3) is surprisingly common, and this was the point I was making in my original post.

I do agree that real bidding skills are important, but that was not my intended point. Anyway, I am sorry for making so many off-topic posts in this thread, and I will stop now.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Jul 21 2009, 02:06 AM, said:

So you certainly can disagree if you want, but are wrong to accuse Fred of trying to 'have his cake and eat it too' as he isn't trying to gain anything for his side in any of this.

From one of Fred's early posts in the thread that started this (in the Bridge Laws section):

Quote

The solution in this particular case is easy - if a spade lead would have worked better than the lead that was actually made, the TD can adjust the score (and bend over backwards to make sure that the non-offending side takes as many tricks as they could ever reasonably take).

This seems to me like the non-offending side "gaining" because that side is no longer subject to the rub of the green result.

Quote

Regardless of the result, another part of the solution might be to assign a procedural penalty to the pair that forgot their system (though I think this would be somewhat heavy-handed in, say, a club game where you rate to find lots of beginners and lots of pickup partnerships).

IMO If supposedly serious players frequently forget then there should be further punishments. Maybe forcing them to play a less complex system for a certain amount of time would be appropriate.

And, this sounds a bit like eating his cake, too. Though, of course, this procedural penalty would not affect the score of the non-offenders. It's sort of like determining that the penalty for a revoke has not restored equity, adjusting the result to restore equity, and then tacking on a procedural penalty to discourage future revokes.

I see how revokes and basic system forgets can be viewed differently, primarily because players choose the complexity of their own system and should choose a level of complexity which they can handle (not forget). There's no self-selected complexity level associated with following suit. (Actually, I recently heard about a revoke made by someone who does not sort the cards in his hand. I wonder if revoke rules should be different for players who do not sort their hands because of the self-inflicted added complexity. Or, maybe this player should be forced to sort his cards for a certain amount of time. :-) )

Imposed reduction in complexity will come with its own problems. There are "complex" methods that some consider essential and would not know what to do without them. Suppose a pair flubs up a new minor forcing auction and is thus forced to take it off their card. Are they now going to be able to give good explanations to the opponents after auctions like 1m-1M-2M or 1D-1H-1N-2C? Doubtful they'll have solid understandings. What happens when one thinks 1m-1M-2M shows 4-card support and the other thinks it could be 3-card support? Is the next step to tell this pair they can no longer raise their partner's suit?

[hrothgar]

655321, on Jul 21 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

2) is extremely unlikely. I don't know any top cardplayers who are 'frequently in the wrong contract', so to me this is a purely theoretical example, which I carelessly did not mention, but well done for finding this possibility and going to the trouble of posting to point it out.

I think that there are plenty of world class pairs who routinely overbid to "bad" 3N contracts. (Meckwell is an obvious example)

Bidding to bad contracts can be a very successful style.

The trick is, of course, that when opposing pairs are defending they have no real way of knowing whether

1. This is a routine 3NT that everyone and their dog will find and can't be set
2. This is a tricky 3NT that needs to be defended carefully
3. This 3NT contract has no legitimate play

Pairs playing against Meckwell are constantly under a great deal of pressure, they get worn down, and they start making errors.

Simply put: I think that this is all a lot more complicated than you think...

[fred]

kenrexford, on Jul 21 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

fred, on Jul 20 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

This is all because the opponents have given you information that allegedly they had agreed upon, which turned out to be wrong.

In the case of a pure mistake, one could argue that the opponents have not given you any information at all. But even if you don't buy that, the information they did give you ("I bid 3NT" or "I play the 3 of spades") is part of the normal mechanisms of bridge - it has nothing to do with an alleged partnership agreement.

I have to say that I am disappointed that those who traditionally argue for "liberal system regulations" (or no systems regulations at all) on these Forums all seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

It would be nice if just one of them would step up to the plate and say "if we are going to be allowed to play our desired methods, despite the fact that many players do not want this, the least we can do is make sure that we know what we are doing".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Choice of wording is important, IMO. You use the word "allegedly" twice here. Why? If the idea is one of MI, it seems that the lugging around of the 100+ page system notes solves that question, ideally. Notably, however, the artists do not seem to ever carry a 100+ page set of system notes to the tournament. Catch the contrast yet?

100 pages of system notes proves nothing.

During a recent ACBL National Pairs Event I played against 2 well known players who were using one of those systems where a 1C opening could be based on a bunch of different types of hands (including strong hands, weak hands, balanced hands, unbalanced hands, hands with long clubs, and hands with short clubs) and a 1D opening was defined by another collection of seemingly-unrelated possible hand types (including, if I recall correctly, minimum hands with zero diamonds and six+ clubs and minimum hands with zero clubs and six+ diamonds - hmmm).

This pair was not a regular partnership.

My RHO opened 1D (alert!), I overcalled 1H, and my LHO bid of 2NT (alert!).

Just in case the subtleties of this highly-obscure auction have not sunk in yet, I will display it using the traditional notation:

1D-(1H)-2NT

My partner asked what 2NT meant and was given a detailed answer. Unfortunately the type of hand the 2NT bidder held was completely different in terms of both expected distribution and expected strength than what my partner was told to expect.

When the hand was over we called the Director.

Not only were the opponents able to produce 100 pages of system notes to prove that the 2NT bidder had "just made a mistake". They proudly showed the TD at least 300 pages of system notes thereby proving just how extensive their partnerships agreements were!

Somewhere around page 187, the TD saw that the correct explanation of the 2NT call had in fact been given to us. The whole thing was just a mistake (oops).

Naturally the TD bought this, shrugged his shoulders, and walked away.

What a joke!

Perhaps needless to say, if my opponents during this (true) story were capable of screwing up such a basic auction as this one, I suspect that giving them a quiz of their alleged agreements as documented by their system notes would have revealed that, in many cases, their answers would have disagreed with what their system notes had to say.

Partners make agreements with each other. They do not make agreements with their system notes or convention cards. If a player frequently forgets what has been documented, there is disagreement (as opposed to agreement) between the partners.

For those who have argued against my basic point but still have not bothered to thoroughly read the initial post, please note that once again in this post I have made references to:

- a basic auction
- frequent system forgets
- forgetting alleged agreements
- serious tournaments

If you want to discuss examples of forgets in highly complex constructive auctions, very occasional forgets, auctions in which there was no agreement and hence nothing to forget, or forgets in club games, be my guest - I am sure that some of these subjects are interesting too.

But you will not be arguing against (or for) the point I was trying to make.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

hrothgar, on Jul 21 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

fred, on Jul 21 2009, 05:14 AM, said:

I have to say that I am disappointed that those who traditionally argue for "liberal system regulations" (or no systems regulations at all) on these Forums all seem to want to have their cake and eat it too.

It would be nice if just one of them would step up to the plate and say "if we are going to be allowed to play our desired methods, despite the fact that many players do not want this, the least we can do is make sure that we know what we are doing".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I think that this is a case where our own particular lenses have a very big impact on the way we view this issue.

I'm sure that you feel your posts are quite reasonable and balanced; however, when I read them the consistant theme is:

"The regulatory structure should systematically discriminate against the bidding style that you use and systematically favor the bidding style that I (coincidentally)happen to use"

And somehow, you seem surprised that the more scientific bidders find this offensive...

From my own perspective, you aren't going to find common ground so long as you're arguing that different (legal) bidding styles should be treated differently under the laws.

I am not arguing that, Richard.

I am arguing that all players have a responsibility to know their agreements.

A consequence is that those who make more agreements have more responsibility.

By the way, in my regular partnerships we tend to make a lot of agreements, even though the basic nature of our system is very "normal" (5-card majors, strong notrumps, weak 2s).

I have no doubt that we have considerably more agreements than many pairs who use considerably less "normal" systems than we do. So, according to my principle, we would have more responsbility to the field than such pairs.

I don't think my principle is discriminatory in nature, but if it is then it also happens to be self-discriminatory.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

I sympathize with Fred's point. I think what's causing this debate to go all over the place is that it would be very difficult to codify the rule you're suggesting. How would you write the regulation that would penalize the example you just gave, but not forgetting a small detail in Ken's scientific cue-bidding and splinter system?

Perhaps the rule could limit itself to forgetting something in the first two rounds of bidding. The further you go into the auction, the less likely you're in familiar territory, so misunderstandings are more understandable at all levels. Although there are also some common exceptions -- should players be allowed to forget what type of Blackwood they're playing?